Classification Metrics for Image Explanations: Towards Building Reliable XAI-Evaluations
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
• This paper presents a framework for evaluating the quality and validity of saliency maps, which are visual explanations used in eXplainable AI (XAI) to highlight the important regions in an image that influence a model's prediction.
• The authors propose several classification metrics to quantitatively assess the reliability and psychometric properties of saliency maps, including measures of sensitivity, specificity, and consistency.
• The framework is evaluated through a series of experiments on image classification tasks, with the goal of providing a more rigorous and standardized approach to validating the interpretability and usefulness of XAI techniques.
Plain English Explanation
Explainable AI (XAI) is a field that aims to make machine learning models more transparent and understandable to humans. One common XAI technique is the use of saliency maps, which are visual heatmaps that highlight the regions of an image that are most important for a model's prediction.
However, evaluating the quality and validity of these saliency maps can be challenging. This paper proposes a set of classification metrics to quantitatively assess the reliability and psychometric properties of saliency maps. These metrics measure things like sensitivity (how well the saliency map identifies the truly important regions) and specificity (how well it avoids highlighting unimportant regions).
The authors test their framework on image classification tasks, with the goal of providing a more rigorous and standardized approach to validating the usefulness and interpretability of XAI techniques. This could help ensure that saliency maps and other XAI tools are truly providing meaningful insights, rather than just generating visually appealing but unreliable explanations.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a framework for evaluating the quality and validity of saliency maps, which are visual explanations used in eXplainable AI (XAI) to highlight the important regions in an image that influence a model's prediction.
The authors propose several classification metrics to quantitatively assess the reliability and psychometric properties of saliency maps:
- Sensitivity: Measures how well the saliency map identifies the truly important regions of the image.
- Specificity: Measures how well the saliency map avoids highlighting unimportant regions.
- Consistency: Measures the stability of the saliency map across multiple model runs or input perturbations.
To evaluate their framework, the authors conduct experiments on image classification tasks, where they generate saliency maps for different models and datasets, and then apply the classification metrics to assess the quality and validity of the explanations.
The results suggest that the proposed metrics can provide a more rigorous and standardized approach to validating the interpretability and usefulness of XAI techniques, compared to more subjective or qualitative evaluation methods.
Critical Analysis
The authors acknowledge several limitations and caveats in their research:
- The proposed metrics rely on having access to "ground truth" importance maps, which may not always be available or easy to obtain.
- The evaluation framework assumes that the saliency maps are directly interpretable by humans, but in practice, the relationship between a model's internal representations and its output explanations can be complex.
- The experiments focus on image classification tasks, and the applicability of the framework to other domains, such as natural language processing or medical diagnosis, may require further investigation.
Additionally, the paper does not address the potential for adversarial attacks on saliency maps, where small perturbations to the input could significantly change the generated explanations, undermining their reliability and trustworthiness.
Future research could explore ways to make the evaluation framework more robust and generalizable, as well as investigate the broader implications of using saliency maps and other interpretable network visualizations to understand and validate deep model decisions.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel framework for quantitatively evaluating the quality and validity of saliency maps, which are a commonly used XAI technique for visualizing the important regions in an image that influence a model's prediction.
By proposing classification metrics to measure sensitivity, specificity, and consistency, the authors aim to provide a more rigorous and standardized approach to validating the interpretability and usefulness of saliency maps and other XAI explanations.
The evaluation results suggest that the proposed framework can be a valuable tool for ensuring the reliability and trustworthiness of XAI systems, which is critical as these technologies become more widely adopted in high-stakes domains like healthcare and finance. However, the authors also identify several limitations and areas for future research to further strengthen and generalize the evaluation approach.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Classification Metrics for Image Explanations: Towards Building Reliable XAI-Evaluations
Benjamin Fresz, Lena Lorcher, Marco Huber
Decision processes of computer vision models - especially deep neural networks - are opaque in nature, meaning that these decisions cannot be understood by humans. Thus, over the last years, many methods to provide human-understandable explanations have been proposed. For image classification, the most common group are saliency methods, which provide (super-)pixelwise feature attribution scores for input images. But their evaluation still poses a problem, as their results cannot be simply compared to the unknown ground truth. To overcome this, a slew of different proxy metrics have been defined, which are - as the explainability methods themselves - often built on intuition and thus, are possibly unreliable. In this paper, new evaluation metrics for saliency methods are developed and common saliency methods are benchmarked on ImageNet. In addition, a scheme for reliability evaluation of such metrics is proposed that is based on concepts from psychometric testing. The used code can be found at https://github.com/lelo204/ClassificationMetricsForImageExplanations .
Read more6/10/2024
0
Explainable Metric Learning for Deflating Data Bias
Emma Andrews, Prabhat Mishra
Image classification is an essential part of computer vision which assigns a given input image to a specific category based on the similarity evaluation within given criteria. While promising classifiers can be obtained through deep learning models, these approaches lack explainability, where the classification results are hard to interpret in a human-understandable way. In this paper, we present an explainable metric learning framework, which constructs hierarchical levels of semantic segments of an image for better interpretability. The key methodology involves a bottom-up learning strategy, starting by training the local metric learning model for the individual segments and then combining segments to compose comprehensive metrics in a tree. Specifically, our approach enables a more human-understandable similarity measurement between two images based on the semantic segments within it, which can be utilized to generate new samples to reduce bias in a training dataset. Extensive experimental evaluation demonstrates that the proposed approach can drastically improve model accuracy compared with state-of-the-art methods.
Read more7/9/2024
0
Evaluating Saliency Explanations in NLP by Crowdsourcing
Xiaotian Lu, Jiyi Li, Zhen Wan, Xiaofeng Lin, Koh Takeuchi, Hisashi Kashima
Deep learning models have performed well on many NLP tasks. However, their internal mechanisms are typically difficult for humans to understand. The development of methods to explain models has become a key issue in the reliability of deep learning models in many important applications. Various saliency explanation methods, which give each feature of input a score proportional to the contribution of output, have been proposed to determine the part of the input which a model values most. Despite a considerable body of work on the evaluation of saliency methods, whether the results of various evaluation metrics agree with human cognition remains an open question. In this study, we propose a new human-based method to evaluate saliency methods in NLP by crowdsourcing. We recruited 800 crowd workers and empirically evaluated seven saliency methods on two datasets with the proposed method. We analyzed the performance of saliency methods, compared our results with existing automated evaluation methods, and identified notable differences between NLP and computer vision (CV) fields when using saliency methods. The instance-level data of our crowdsourced experiments and the code to reproduce the explanations are available at https://github.com/xtlu/lreccoling_evaluation.
Read more5/20/2024
0
Are Objective Explanatory Evaluation metrics Trustworthy? An Adversarial Analysis
Prithwijit Chowdhury, Mohit Prabhushankar, Ghassan AlRegib, Mohamed Deriche
Explainable AI (XAI) has revolutionized the field of deep learning by empowering users to have more trust in neural network models. The field of XAI allows users to probe the inner workings of these algorithms to elucidate their decision-making processes. The rise in popularity of XAI has led to the advent of different strategies to produce explanations, all of which only occasionally agree. Thus several objective evaluation metrics have been devised to decide which of these modules give the best explanation for specific scenarios. The goal of the paper is twofold: (i) we employ the notions of necessity and sufficiency from causal literature to come up with a novel explanatory technique called SHifted Adversaries using Pixel Elimination(SHAPE) which satisfies all the theoretical and mathematical criteria of being a valid explanation, (ii) we show that SHAPE is, infact, an adversarial explanation that fools causal metrics that are employed to measure the robustness and reliability of popular importance based visual XAI methods. Our analysis shows that SHAPE outperforms popular explanatory techniques like GradCAM and GradCAM++ in these tests and is comparable to RISE, raising questions about the sanity of these metrics and the need for human involvement for an overall better evaluation.
Read more6/13/2024